R v CJP

Case [2003] NSWCCA 187 21 July 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v CJP; Regina v CAD; Regina v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187 revised - 10/12/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Hidden J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 1

DECISION: See pars 73-75 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - Crown appeals - pleas of guilty - whether sentences endorsed by District Court Judge, in the absence of the parties, on Committal for Sentence Form validly imposed - delay of three months between imposition of sentences and publication of reasons - requirement for sentences to be accompanied by contemporaneous reasons emphasised - whether any sentences validly imposed - necessity for all matters to be remitted to the District Court.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 ss 4, 61J, 61J(1), 61N(1), 66C(1), 66C(2), 78L, 345, 580E(2), 580E(4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 22(2), 22(4), 32, 33, 44, 62(1), 70, 70(3)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s12(2)
District Court Rules Pt31 r9

CASES CITED: AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111
Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Kunnath v The State [1993] 1 WLR 1315
Lawrence v The King [1933] AC 699
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
R v Cornwell [1972] 2 NSWLR 1
R v Julie Ann Duffy [1999] NSWCCA 321
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18
R v Jones (No 2) (1972) 1 WLR 887
Richmond Newspapers v Virginia 448 US 555 (1980)
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247

PARTIES :
Regina v CJP; Regina v CAD; Regina v MES

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60030/03; 60031/03; 60032/03

COUNSEL: Crown - G.I. Rowling
Respondent CJP - H. Dhanji
Respondent CAD - J.P. Butland
Respondent MES - J. Stratton

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent CJP - D.J. Humphreys
Respondent CAD - Bilias & Associates
Respondent MES - Velcic & Company

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3265; 01/21/3324; 01/21/3318

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : His Honour Acting Judge Moore

60030/03
60031/03
60032/03

SHELLER JA
HIDDEN J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Monday, 21 July 2003

REGINA v CJP

REGINA v CAD

REGINA v MES

Judgment

1 THE COURT: On 7 February 2003, the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged in the Court and served notices of appeal dated 5 February 2003 against the alleged inadequacy of sentences pronounced by his Honour Acting Judge Moore at the Campbelltown District Court on 4 December 2002 upon CJP, CAD and MES. The three matters had been heard together by his Honour.

2 The notices of appeal came before this Court on 28 May 2003, when the Court raised with counsel for each of the parties certain jurisdictional and procedural problems. The matters were then…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v CJP

Details

AGLC: R v CJP [2003] NSWCCA 187
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 187
Decision Date: 21 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v CJP, the respondent, CJP, appealed against sentences imposed on him by the District Court. The Crown appealed against the sentences as being manifestly inadequate, particularly in relation to charges of aggravated burglary and false imprisonment. The appeal came before the Court of Appeal, which held jurisdiction under section 66 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (Vic). The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court Judge were validly endorsed in the absence of the parties and whether the sentences were accompanied by contemporaneous reasons. Additionally, the court examined whether the delay of three months between the imposition of sentences and the publication of reasons rendered the sentences invalid.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentences were not validly imposed because the District Court Judge endorsed the sentences in the absence of the parties. The court emphasised the importance of the requirement for sentences to be accompanied by contemporaneous reasons, stating that this was a critical aspect of the sentencing process. The court found that the delay in providing reasons for the sentences further undermined their validity. As a result, the Court of Appeal concluded that the sentences were not validly imposed and that the matter needed to be remitted to the District Court for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal quashed the sentences and remitted the matter to the District Court for re-sentencing. The court stressed that all matters, including the adequacy of the sentences, should be reconsidered by the District Court. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences are both properly endorsed and accompanied by contemporaneous reasons to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Orders